Monthly Archives: November 2016

I can. I would not put anything past these scumbag HRC supporters. Oh Lord, how I wish these liberal %$#&^’s would come and try to vandalize my property, it would be their last act in life! I’ll make sure they would never walk again. Come and get me you liberal derelicts, I’m easy to find, but you best bring a squad, better yet, make that a platoon.

Navy Veteran’s Home Torched and Vandalized with Anti-Trump Graffiti

Navy veteran Matthew Smith returned home after spending the night with relatives to find his house in Plant City, Fla., heavily damaged by fire and vandalized with obscene anti-Donald Trump graffiti. Smith believes his home was targeted because of his support for Trump.

“It’s not what I expected out of America,” Smith told a local Fox affiliate. “It should be us figuring problems out together. Not one side against the other.”

Smith and his wife, Brittany, said they had supported Trump since he announced his candidacy for president in 2015, but never publicly identified themselves as Trump supporters by, for example, displaying a campaign sign in their yard. “We were all very nice to everybody,” Brittany said. “We got along with people. So it’s very odd.”

Matthew was not shy, however, when it came to expressing his political views on Facebook, where he said he frequently posted comments in support of Trump, gun rights, and other conservative causes. He also flies the American flag in front of his house, along with the Navy flag and a black flag supporting prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action.

Police are investigating to determine if there is a link between the attack on the Smiths’ home and similar incidents in nearby Mango, Fla., where two mobile homes were recently defaced with anti-Trump graffiti. One of the attacks reportedly involved at an attempt to set the home on fire.

Like this:

By Linda Tripp

Arguably at no time since the aftermath of the Civil War has there ever been a time when unity in America was more critical. In a unique position to facilitate that unity, Hillary Rodham Clinton decided instead to champion divisiveness by actively questioning the outcome of the election. For those who intimately know and understand the Clinton Playbook, this is business as usual. There are never any real surprises with Hillary. For the President-elect who has been remarkably magnanimous concerning his erstwhile opponent, this divisive tactic will make his enormous job all the more difficult. And that is precisely the point.

The Hillary many of us know emerged by not emerging on election night. To the dismay of her supporters not only in Manhattan’s cavernous Javitz Center but across the entire country, she was a no show. Her loyal supporters had anticipated a victory, a blow out. All the networks, the print press, the pundits had virtually assured them of this. Yes, the grand fireworks display over the Hudson River had been inexplicably cancelled, but sunshine and lollipops would reign supreme anyway. Her victory was a foregone conclusion.

As election night became early morning, and as their friends at the networks were forced (in abject horror) to call the election in favor of her opponent, her supporters faced not jubilant victory but unthinkable yet indisputable defeat. They faced it alone. As they waited in vain for their candidate to appear, classic HRC is what they got.

Foregoing a gracious and necessary personal appearance, she threw the wily John Podesta out on the stage. Best known for his emails, this odd choice of stand-in appeared pale, in visible shock and much like a marionette whose tangled strings had a mind of their own. His bizarre appearance left more questions than answers and his shaken performance seemed to suck all the oxygen out of the room. Clinton’s supporters were left with not only morose defeat but also a sense of abandonment as they wandered aimlessly out of the victory hall. As Donald Trump faced the enormity of his win, he gave a heartfelt, humble and gracious victory speech, one which in its inclusiveness was clearly meant to begin our national healing. Hillary’s voters across the country finally went to bed, monumentally let down by all of it. Their mistake was in believing she actually cared about all of them.

All this occurred due to a fundamental Hillary truth: It is first, last and always all about her. Period. It was never about her supporters in the hall or voters across the country. They are routinely forgotten once the votes are tallied and she resurrects their importance only if and when the next election approaches. They have always been nothing more than a means to an end. They are not living, breathing, feeling individuals.

By many reports, on election night this strong glass ceiling breaker was too busy crying inconsolably and pitching a less than presidential fit to give a fig about anyone else. Too distraught to appear, in the end this supposedly strong candidate who proudly touted the gender card became little more than a weak and tired cliché. At the risk of dating myself, she became less “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar” and more “It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To,” and exposed once and for all the real woman behind the mask.

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride about sums it up when one looks at this election and that of 2008. Hillary was the odds-on favorite to win both times. In 2008 she couldn’t even clinch the nomination. She considered it stolen. In 2016, her opponent snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and in one fell swoop crushed a coronation. She was resoundingly defeated by an unlikely candidate who never served even one day of his 69 years in government service. It appears she is not quite ready to give up that crown.

Her concession speech the day after the election began her attempt at rebuilding what was fast becoming her tattered legacy.

When she finally appeared, she didn’t congratulate the President-elect, she didn’t throw her support behind him. Instead, she stated the obvious fact that “he will be our next president” and opined that we needed to give him a chance. After checking that requisite box for any losing candidate, she promptly fell back on her tired refrain of “women and girls” and glass ceilings, offering them hope for the future. While aspirational in its resonance, just about all women not named Hillary Clinton have long since known this artificial glass ceiling had been thoroughly and completely shattered years before.

Countless Presidents and Prime Ministers, world leaders all, have been and are women. Some going back decades. For the sake of argument, we won’t even consider the female surgeons, pilots, astronauts, CEOs, elected officials and diplomats to name just a few both here and around the world who years later are still picking shards of glass out of their hairdos. Women have long since arrived at the pinnacle of power, they are just named something other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Apparently they don’t count.

Today we see a machination that many who know Hillary knew to expect. If one wonders if the less than impactful Jill Stein had a little “help” in her quest to challenge the election, wonder no more. That the Clinton campaign has joined forces to ensure “fairness” tells the whole story. Everyone questioned whether or not Donald Trump would accept the outcome of the election. With the pervasive corruption attributed to his opponent on so many fronts, he was wise to question a potentially rigged system.

But it was a question that if asked of one, should have been asked of the other. In an election cycle that was from all accounts preordained, no one bothered to ask Hillary. It might have been a good idea to run that one by her. On her plane following the debate, she opined on this subject as it pertained to her opponent. She characterized him dismissively in a denigrating way and blathered on about our democratic process, but failed to include herself in this equation. Now we know her answer. As many of us have always known, the rules always apply to everyone else but absolutely never apply to Hillary. We understood she would be the very last one to accept defeat, graciously or otherwise.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton still cannot comprehend or accept what she believes is an inconceivable outcome of the election. She never will. Her likeness was supposed to grace our currency decades in the future. That was the plan. Instead of leaving the national stage with grace and dignity, she is hanging on by her fingernails. This time she is using the inconsequential Jill Stein to do her public dirty work.

Loath to exit the international arena, she will use every trick in the book in what will be a futile attempt to change the outcome of the election. She will not publicly participate, she will leave that to her now defunct campaign, ensuring her minions do it for her. Those minions have their marching orders, and in Hillary’s world, there is not a minion alive who would question her direct order. Not while there is a chance they could change the election and retake the White House.

So as the President-elect conducts a well-disciplined transition and prepares to lead the nation in a matter of weeks, the country will simply have to endure Hillary’s behind-the-scenes temper tantrum. With strains of “Hail to the Chief” echoing silently in her mind, all else pales for Hillary. Unity be damned. She’s going for it. Not for the good of the country. Never for the good of the country. It is for personal achievement, for personal gain, for personal riches. And that’s the gal I know.

Like this:

Jill Stein’s recount efforts aren’t going to win her the presidency. What they will get her is donor data potentially worth millions of dollars.

The former Green Party candidate has raised more than $6.4 million to fund voting recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania since November 23. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in each state by a narrow margin, leading some still-optimistic progressives to hold onto the slim hope the results will be flipped. But Stein, whose distaste for Clinton is obvious, isn’t trying to oust Trump. She’s gathering email addresses.

Stein is the owner of the name, contact and credit card information of each and every individual who donates to the #Recount2016 cause. And while at first glance it may appear a trivial detail, in the political realm, it’s gold. Not only can she use them for future fundraising efforts of her own, but she can also rent out the emails gathered for thousands and even millions of dollars.

“She’s collected tens of thousands of high-quality donor emails, and many of those folks will continue to give and give over and over again if her campaign asks,” said Kenneth Pennington, former national digital director of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

An average, fresh email address is generally worth $5 to $10, but donor emails can easily be valued at $20 to $30, said Vincent Harris, a Texas-based digital strategist who worked for Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz, among others.

The Stein recount campaign has received donations from nearly 140,000 individuals. Taking that into account, a conservative calculation puts the list Stein is now in possession of at $2.8 million. Harris estimated she could command a fee of $50,000 to $75,000 for a one-time blast.

“It’s a really powerful asset for her, and it’s one that could be a moneymaker,” he said.

Stein uses NationBuilder, a Software as a Service for political causes and campaigns, for her fundraising efforts. Unlike other platforms that use crowdsourcing like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, NationBuilder does not take a cut of any of the donations. It doesn’t hold onto donor information, either — Stein does.

“Jill Stein then owns that data and can use the emails, use the amounts they save and have the information about the amounts they’ve donated and also, if they’ve recruited other people,” said Emily Schwartz, vice president at NationBuilder.

Once a person has donated, they have the option to share that via Facebook or Twitter. This is part of what has helped Stein’s campaign go viral — and garnered her more information and names.

“That creates a natural engine for her to keep that going,” said Schwartz.

Donor lists are a hot commodity in politics. “The immediate donations are gravy, but the emails, which they will trade and sell to other like-minded groups, is where the enduring value is,” said John Phillips, CEO of nonpartisan political technology firm Aristotle.

Ben Carson collected information from more than 700,000 supporters during his presidential run. The list could earn the retired neurosurgeon $4 million over three years of rentals, according to one estimate. Wisconsin Republican Scott Walker used the rental of 675,000 emails on his list to pay off his more than $1 million in campaign debt.

According to FEC filings, Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign committee made $2.2 million in list rentals in 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign committee made $3.1 million on list rentals in the 2010 midterm election cycle two years later.

Bernie Sanders is in possession of what could potentially be a very lucrative list — more than 2.4 million donors gave to his presidential campaign. But he’s not renting it out. He is instead using it for his Our Revolution political action organization, which raises money for various progressive candidates and causes.

Email lists owned and used by a candidate’s campaign committee are the property of the candidate’s campaign committee, and any money derived from renting the lists belongs to the committee, not the candidate, said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Common Cause.

“Both the email lists and money derived from rental of the lists are campaign committee assets and can’t be converted to the personal use of the candidate. Doing so would violate well-established federal campaign finance law,” he said.

Scam super PACs are more prevalent on the right than on the left, and the same happens with list rentals, though to a lesser degree. Progressive organizations tend to have stricter standards about opting users in to receive emails, and they are generally more wary of falling into traps by sending a lot of unsolicited mail.

Still, there’s no doubt Stein is now in possession of a valuable asset.

A Stein spokeswoman said that the average donation size for the recount campaign is about $45, and that three-quarters of the donations received have been under $100. Only a little over 300 contributions of over $1,000 have been made. The maximum amount allowed legally is $2,700 per donor per campaign.

The spokeswoman declined to comment on Stein’s intentions for the donor list.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller on a call with press Monday called Stein’s recount efforts a “completely frivolous, throwaway fundraising scheme.” But that isn’t the case.

“I’d pay at least $2 for any old working email address. These are donor addresses so they’re worth much, much more. The future value depends on the quality and tenacity of the fundraisers are who control the fate of the list down the line,” said Pennington.

Election Therapy From My Basket of Deplorables

During his interview with The New York Times on Tuesday, Donald Trump chided me twice for being too tough on him.

Sitting next to our publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Trump invited everyone around the table to call him if they saw anything “where you feel that I’m wrong.”

“You can call me, Arthur can call me, I would love to hear,” he said. “The only one who can’t call me is Maureen. She treats me too rough.”

Then I had to go home for Thanksgiving and deal with my family scolding me about the media misreading the country. I went cold turkey to eat hot turkey: no therapy dog, no weaving therapy, no yoga, no acupuncture, no meditation, no cry-in.

The minute I saw my sister’s Trump champagne and a Cersei figurine as the centerpiece — my brother, Kevin, nicknamed Hillary “Cersei” during this year’s brutal game of thrones — I knew I wasn’t in a safe space.

My little basket of deplorables, as I call my conservative family, gloated with Trump toasts galore, and Kevin presented me with his annual holiday column with an extra flourish.

My colleague Paul Krugman tweeted Friday that “affluent, educated suburbanites” who voted for Trump are “fools.” What else is there to say, he asked.

Well, here is what Kevin, an “affluent, educated suburbanite,” has to say in his column, titled an “Election Therapy Guide for Liberals”:

Donald Trump pulled off one of the greatest political feats in modern history by defeating Hillary Clinton and the vaunted Clinton machine.

The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.

The rudeness reached its peak when Vice President-elect Mike Pence was booed by attendees of “Hamilton” and then pompously lectured by the cast. This may play well with the New York theater crowd but is considered boorish and unacceptable by those of us taught to respect the office of the president and vice president, if not the occupants.

Here is a short primer for the young protesters. If your preferred candidate loses, there is no need for mass hysteria, canceled midterms, safe spaces, crying rooms or group primal screams. You might understand this better if you had not received participation trophies, undeserved grades to protect your feelings or even if you had a proper understanding of civics. The Democrats are now crying that Hillary had more popular votes. That can be her participation trophy.

If any of my sons had told me they were too distraught over a national election to take an exam, I would have brought them home the next day, fearful of the instruction they were receiving. Not one of the top 50 colleges mandate one semester of Western Civilization. Maybe they should rethink that.

Something for some members of the Dowd family to celebrate their candidate’s victory, and at least one to drown her sorrows.

KEVIN DOWD

Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamaphobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.” I would caution Trump deniers that all of the crying and whining is not good preparation for the coming storm. The liberal media, both print and electronic, has lost all credibility. I am reasonably sure that none of the mainstream print media had stories prepared for a Trump victory. I watched the networks and cable stations in their midnight meltdown — embodied by Rachel Maddow explaining to viewers that they were not having a “terrible, terrible dream” and that they had not died and “gone to hell.”

The media’s criticism of Trump’s high-level picks as “not diverse enough” or “too white and male” — a day before he named two women and offered a cabinet position to an African-American — magnified this fact.

Here is a final word to my Democratic friends. The election is over. There will not be a do-over. So let me bid farewell to Al Sharpton, Ben Rhodes and the Clintons. Note to Cher, Barbra, Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham: Your plane is waiting. And to Jon Stewart, who talked about moving to another planet: Your spaceship is waiting. To Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Beyoncé and Katy Perry, thanks for the free concerts. And finally, to all the foreign countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation, there will not be a payoff or a rebate.

As Eddie Murphy so eloquently stated in the movie “48 Hrs.”: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” And he is going to be here for 1,461 days. Merry Christmas.

Like this:

Yes, he is reportedly dead, Miami’s Little Havana community celebrates. I hope we have enough therapy dogs to handle all the snowflakes’ new grief? Ronald Reagan at his best.

Fidel Castro, the Marxist degenerate who took over Cuba and turned it into an impoverished island prison, has died, and not a moment too soon.

Castro will forever be romanticized by the American left for his revolutionary chic attire and anti-western swagger, and because hipsters freaking love beards. But make no mistake, this man was an absolute monster. The Babalu Blog, an anti-Castro oasis on the internet, chronicles some of his worst atrocities:

The Cuba Archive which documents deaths and disappearances resulting from Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution has documented 3,615 firing squad executions conducted by the Cuban state since Castro took over on January 1, 1959.

Opponents of the death penalty should be horrified at the amount of death Fidel Castro and his accomplices have directly caused. It’s important to note that in Revolutionary Cuba there are none of the due process guarantees found in a western-style democracy. Most of Castro’s firing squad victims were afforded only a perfunctory show trial the outcome of which was predetermined, some didn’t even get that. Ernesto “Ché” Guevara is a popular culture icon, his face adorns posters and t-shirts around the globe. Most people don’t realize that he was Fidel Castro’s chief enforcer and had a personal hand in at least 100 firing squad executions, often delivering the coup de grace personally. In response to questions about Castro’s firing squads Guevara once said, “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”

Castro’s effort to remake the country as a Marxist paradise turned a beautiful island nation into a prison colony. Over the years Castro ruled Cuba with an iron fist, hundreds of thousands of Cubans fled the island on anything that could float, establishing a vibrant, freedom loving community in Miami. Last night, they came together to celebrate the tyrant’s death. Per CNN:

News of Fidel Castro’s death was quick to reach Miami, Florida, the center of the Cuban exile community, where an outpouring of emotion brought jubilant crowds onto the streets of Little Havana.

Some popped champagne corks, others clanged pots and waved the Cuban flag as they cheered the death of a man who defined the lives of so many of their number through decades in exile in the United States.

Hundreds gathered outside the neighborhood’s Versailles restaurant, a longtime haunt of the exile community, spilling out on to the street from the sidewalk as they chanted, sang, danced and took smart phone videos of a historic moment.

We at American Action News stand with those folks in Miami, and we hope that Castro’s death puts us one step closer to consigning communism and its related totalitarian, collectivist ideological cousins to the dustbin of history where they belong.